Andrea Mitchell: "Let me ask you about this whole issue of gay marriage and give you a chance to respond... what is the latest position of Mitt Romney and Republicans on this issue [same-sex marriage]?"

Reince Priebus: "Governor Romney and the Republican Party have been pretty clear, marriage is between one man and one woman. We believe ultimately that you can't federalize that kind of mandate, which is why we believe that individual states can make that decision on their own..."

Some time back, Romney signed a pledge that he would support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Now that he has the nomination locked up, Romney is trying to pivot to the center to appeal to independents/moderates and a some voters that are center-left, typical for a RINO, and thus these comments from Priebus.

Where it now stands:

I.) a. Romney does not support same-sex marriage. b.) Romney does not support a federalized mandate on marriage being between one man and one woman. c.) Romney believes this issue should be left up to the states.

Romney has once again has an etch-a-sketch moment. Out the window goes his support for a federal (Constitutional) ban on same-sex marriage.

Given that DOMA is already in place, when Priebus says that Romney believes that “marriage is between one man and one woman, “ but that “you can’t federalize that kind of mandate,” it is clear that Romney has tossed his support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage under the bus, hence why Priebus said what he did on MSNBC, and not FOX News.

I can’t wait for all of the hosts on Fox News and talk radio to fall over themselves reporting this. /s.

Neither Romney nor Obama fool me. Neither are worth voting for. Hence why my focus is on getting more Tea Party people elected and voting for Virgil Goode.

Given that DOMA is already in place, there can be nothing else but a constitutional amendment that Romney is talking about. Romney does not want to have any federal mandate concerning same-sex marriage, hence why Priebus said that this issue should be left up to the individual states.

A Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would take this issue away from the states.

By choosing the terms in which he couches his opinions, he can look like he’s backing one side or the other.

To be fair. Mitt ought to be pressed on specifics like marriage amendments. He may not believe that marriage LEGISLATION has a leg to stand on in the current Federal constitutional regime, but an amendment is a whole nother ball of wax. It has to depend on no precedent whatsoever other than getting into the Constitution through the prescribed amendment process.

10
posted on 05/09/2012 2:56:40 PM PDT
by HiTech RedNeck
(Mitt! You're going to have to try harder than that to be "severely conservative" my friend.)

I frankly just don’t trust Romney on this issue. Or, most any other issues, as well. But especially this one. He was selling himself as more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy during his Senate race, for goodness sakes! Sure as the world, he’s going to pivot again and side with the pervs if he ever gets into office. Makes me sick thinking about it.

Given Priebus’ comments, and when you look at both statements “you can’t federalize that kind of mandate” and “the individual states can make that decision on their own, Romney has tossed his pledge for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage under the bus, along with almost every other promise he has made to the base of the GOP.

If you push for a federal constitutional amendment ban on same-sex marriage (a federal mandate), then you take the issue away from the states to make their own decisions on this.

Given that Priebus said that 1.) “you can’t federalize that kind of mandate” and 2.) that “individual states can make that decision on their own,” there is no way to harmonize both statements and follow them up by saying that Romney still supports a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

There is nothing else for Priebus to refer to when he says “you can’t federalize that kind of mandate” and “individual states can make that decision on their own” other than Romney now making a no-go on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

If Romney completely leaves this up to the states as Priebus says, then you defederalize the issue. Add that to Priebus saying that Romney also doesn’t want to federalize this kind of mandate, the it is clear that no federal intervention and leaving this up to the states and you have Romney exposed for trying to piviot away from his past support for a ban on same-sex marriage.

I can’t believe that you still trust Romney on any issue. He is a flip-flopper par excellence.

“I am not unaware of my opponents considerable record in the area of civil rights, or the commitment of Massachusetts voters to the principle of equality for all Americans. For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponents record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.

We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to include housing and credit, and the bill to create a federal panel to find ways to reduce gay and lesbian youth suicide, which I also support. One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clintons dont ask, dont tell, dont pursue military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nations military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.”

If the President decided to announce that he supports gay marriage, then a Constitutional amendment is a moot issue. Obviously, if there was anywhere near the level of opposition to it, the President wouldn't have take this step.

The real question is how long states can not recognize gay marriages. I have never understood the rationalization that it could be illegal in one state and legal in another. A couple that's married in one state and moves to another, still files as a married couple. Obama killed DOMA.

Nov. 18, 2003 Romney responds to SJC ruling with four-sentence statement implicitly recognizing SJCs authority, says only remedy will be a constitutional amendment: I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman.
Nov.-Dec. 2003 Romney reportedly working with Legislators promoting civil unions.
Jan. 2004 Romney silent on proposal to remove four SJC justices through Bill of Address (put forward by Article 8 Alliance / MassResistance).
Feb. 4, 2004 SJC tells Legislature that civil unions for same-sex couples will not satisfy its interpretation of the Mass. Constitution; only full-fledged marriage will do.
Feb. 5, 2004 Romney publishes editorial in Wall Street Journal laying all blame on the SJC for problem in Massachusetts. Suggests other states strengthen marriage statutes and pass constitutional amendments. Says dont attack gays, singles or non-traditional couples.
Feb. 2004 Justices of the Peace are told by their professional association they will be able to claim conscientious objector status and refuse to perform same-sex marriages — though this was never agreed to by Romney administration.
Feb.-May 2004 Pro-family leaders and columnists urge Romney to defy court, and issue Executive Order to block same-sex marriage; no public comment from Romney.
March 12, 2004 As Legislature postures on constitutional amendments, Romney continues to say amendment to Mass. Constitution is solution.
March 26, 2004 Word leaks out that Romneys Dept. of Public Health (DPH) and attorneys are planning training sessions for Town Clerks and preparing same-sex marriage licenses.
March 29, 2004 Romney tells Republicans in Mass. legislature to vote for Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment which would ban same-sex marriage but establish civil unions (and would not go to voters before Nov. 2006). Republican legislators had earlier opposed this amendment because of the civil unions clause, and it passed only due to their changed votes.
March 29-31, 2004 Romney seeks stay of SJC ruling until constitutional amendment issue is settled, but Atty. General Reilly refuses to take Governors case before SJC. [Did Romney believe that same court that issued Goodridge ruling would seriously consider his request for a stay?]
March 30, 2004 Romney says hell abide by the law of the land as it exists on May 17 and says he would not order town clerks to defy court edict. Romney says hed not explored the Constitution section giving him power over causes of marriage and whether it gives him any legal power to stop same-sex marriage (according to spokesman).
April 12, 2004 Romney spokesman says training sessions for town clerks will begin with plenty of room to spare before May 17. Ron Crews of Mass. Coalition for Marriage states hope for an Executive Order to halt the marriages.
April 15, 2004 Romney files emergency bill in Legislature to seek stay of SJC ruling, and is rebuffed and reprimanded by Senate President Travaglini.
April 15, 2004 Romneys DPH Registrar of Vital Records informs town clerks by letter of training sessions before SJC ruling becomes effective.
April 16, 2004 Romney announces his administration is scheduling training sessions for May 5-12 with licenses changed from husband/wife to Party A/Party B.
April 17, 2004 Mass. Dept. of Revenue (under Romney) declares SJC ruling the new law.
April 22, 2004 Romney does not comment on Rep. Goguen’s filing of Bill of Address for Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance to remove the 4 SJC judges, or Article 8s revelation of Chief Justice Marshalls violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. (Marshall had appeared as keynote speaker at homosexual advocacy group dinner in 1999 advocated extension of rights for homosexuals, and failed to recuse herself from ruling on same-sex marriage though she had publicly expressed her bias.)
April 26, 2004 Romneys chief Legal Counsel, Daniel Winslow, issues directive to Justices of the Peace to resign (or be fired, fined, or sued) if they are unwilling to perform same-sex marriages (exact date not given on document).
April 29, 2004 Romney writes to 49 other Governors to inform them hell uphold section of Mass. marriage statutes banning same-sex marriages for out-of-state couples.
May 5-12, 2004 Town clerk training sessions held. [GLAD  Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders — is only source on content of sessions; perhaps they were responsible for content?]
May 15, 2004 Romney issues proclamation: May 15 is Gay/Straight Youth Pride Day. Romneys Governors Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth events include parade, GLBT activism (with prominent transsexual radical activists), and a GLBT prom  two days before same-sex marriages are to begin.
May 17, 2004 Same-sex marriages begin across Massachusetts. Romney issues brief statement: All along, I have said an issue as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage should be decided by the people. Until then, I intend to follow the law and expect others to do the same. [What law? Original marriage statutes clearly defining marriage as between a man and a woman were and are — still on the books, unchanged by the Legislature. So Romney is not enforcing the actual lawjust a court opinion.]
May 18, 2004 Romney begins enforcement of section of marriage statute banning out-of-state couples marrying in Mass. if that marriage would be illegal in their home state, while other intact sections of the marriage statute (man and woman) are ignored.
June 22, 2004 Romney testifies before US Senate Judiciary Committee for federal marriage amendment and blames Court for situation in Massachusetts.
Oct. 29, 2004 Romney signs new law eliminating blood test for STDs as requirement for marriage license (Ch. 388 of Acts of 2004). [Note: this is the only part of marriage statutes changed to satisfy demands of same-sex marriage]
Dec. 2004 Romney has no comment on bills filed by Article 8 Alliance / MassResistance for 2005-6 session: to remove four SJC judges; strengthen definition of marriage in statute; and declare same-sex marriages since May 17, 2004 null/void and without statutory basis.
Feb. 21, 2005 Romney makes speech before South Carolina Republicans, then is accused of flip-flopping on civil unions by homosexual lobby. Romney also negatively refers to demands by the homosexual activists that birth certificates be changed to read Parent A/Parent B (instead of father/mother), arguing he had no authority to make such a change [though he had no such qualms about changing the marriage license].
June 16, 2005 Romney joins VoteOnMarriage (VOM) amendment effort, which would recognize same-sex marriages prior to amendment taking effect, and not ban civil unions. (Romney says VOM is superior to the Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment.) Romney also announces support of VOMs proposed bill promoting partnership benefits for any couple wanting them (see Benefits Fairness Act filed Jan. 2006). Romney says hes opposed to removing the four SJC judges. Calls for a high degree of respect and tolerance for people whose lifestyle and choices and orientation is as they may choose.
July 22, 2005 Romney says only Legislature can change birth certificates from father/mother to Parent A/Parent B.
Sept. 14, 2005 Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment defeated in Legislature.
Nov. 2005 Romney tells Federalist Society that judiciary must be grounded in Constitution and law and precedents, and only the Legislature and people can change that base.
Jan. 2, 2006 Boston Globe reports Romney issued special Governors ceremonial marriage licenses to 189 same-sex couples in 2005 (including to homosexual activist state senator), claiming he did not refuse because he was evenly applying the statute. [Note: There is no new statute establishing same-sex marriage.]
Jan. 11, 2006 Romney files Benefits Fairness Act with VoteOnMarriage, which is roundly criticized by GLBT lobby, and shelved in Committee as late-filed bill.
March 10-14, 2006 Romney says laws require Catholic Charities not to discriminate against same-sex parents in its adoption placements [but theres only an administrative regulation]. He says same-sex couples have “a legitimate interest” in adopting children.
June 2, 2006 Romney sends letter to US Congress arguing for federal marriage amendment.
June 28, 2006 Romney urges Legislature to vote on VOM amendment, and addresses importance of following Constitution.
Sept. 30, 2006 Romney says he has to follow the law, and accept Mass. Superior Court ruling stating Rhode Island lesbian couple can marry in Massachusetts (following an earlier SJC ruling addressing Rhode Islands lack of prohibition of same-sex marriage).
Oct. 15, 2006 Romney addresses nationally broadcast Liberty Sunday (Family Research Council) event in Boston. Blames SJC for Mass. problems, says we need an outpouring of respect and tolerance for all people regardless of different choices they make, and as a nation we must reject discrimination and bigotry. Calls for support of federal marriage amendment.
Nov. 19, 2006 Romney holds rally on State House steps announcing hes delivering a copy of the Constitution to every Legislator who voted to recess the Constitutional Convention (to avoid the vote on the VOM amendment required by state Constitution). Romney also announces hes appealing to the courts. [But he says nothing about the SJC precedent of Dec. 20, 2002, ruling that the Legislature must vote in this situation, which already affirms that he should call Legislators back.]

Obama should be impeached for refusing to enforce
A FEDERAL LAW. The Defense of Marriage Act is the law of the land and this moron flatly says he will not abide by it and has told his AG to ignore it. Time to put shackles and chains on this criminal and escort him to to the nearest holding cell, to await charges of high crimes against the United States of America.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.